The Myth of Objectivity

One of the main premises of this blog will be that there is no objectivity in this world - at least as far as humans are concerned. Many people would like you to believe that they are objective, but this goes against human nature.

Journalists uphold objectivity as one of their sacred creeds, yet this is an ideal which is impossible to achieve. Every journalist comes to the job with many biases and preconceived notions about every topic, issue,person or story that they are going to cover.
We are all influenced by our background, our family, the society we grew up in, the books we read, the life choices we made, and many other things. No two people see the world through exactly the same lenses. So when a journalist tells you that they are giving you the 'objective facts', they are only deceiving themselves. Of course, this is not the journalist's fault. They are not necessarily trying to deceive the public. It is simply the way human beings tell a story. We package things, put them in a specific context, choose words to use, and explain the story through the lenses which we see it. So there is no objective story. All stories are told subjectively, and that is okay as long as we are aware of the biases of the storyteller.

What is true in Journalism is true in all other professions. Scientists do not just present 'facts', based on objective analysis. All scientists have preconceived notions about the things which they are studying, and they bring certain assumptions to the field or the lab where they are conducting the study. They have theories which they wish to prove, and other theories which they don't particularly like. It is only natural that their findings will be biased, as the findings of a study are heavily influenced by the biases of the study's conductor.

I can apply this analysis to every profession or endeavor known to mankind, but at the moment I am just going to bring two more examples. First, there is the field of Law. We all know that lawyers are extremely biased, as it is their job to advocate for their client. They are expected to present a point of view and argue for it in court. But is the judge presiding over the trial any different? And what about the jury which provides a verdict in a jury trial? Of course, the answer is that none of these people are objective. I recently was called for jury duty, and I found it comical to fill out the questionnaire which they give you asking questions to determine your objectivity and lack of bias in the case. I could have saved them some time, and told them that I am not objective. But the truth is - there is no objective jury, because all members of any jury have biases about every case which they may encounter. This is because they are human, and not robots. Same with the judge. He or she is extremely biased, and this is not necessarily a bad thing. We simply must be aware of their biases, and not allow ourselves to be deceived.

This leads me to the last subject of this posting, which is probably the most delicate one of all - religion. Regardless of what religion or faith you choose to follow, it would be foolish for you to believe that you (or your particular religious sect or denomination) has the absolute truth about anything in or outside of this world. The logic which holds with journalism, science, or law, holds with religion as well. You can believe anything, but if you claim to know than you are a fool. In other words, the whole concept of faith is that we believe in that which we cannot know with any degree of certainty, nor can we prove. So regardless of the topic - God, the Bible, angels, miracles,'salvation',heaven, law, morality, epistemology, textual criticism, etc.... there must always be room for debate and discussion. Because we are human, no one of us can say that they are certain about any of these issues, and neither am I. This is why I find the concept of 'heresy' a bit ridiculous. We are all biased. We all have opinions. I do not believe in moral relativism, since I believe there is absolute truth, BUT (and this is a big BUT) I do not believe that any one of us has all of the truth. The problem is that many religious communities have a lynch-mob mentality, where anyone who presents a view which is outside of the 'consensus' - i.e. the view of the community leaders - is labeled a 'heretic' and shunned.

So here it is: I AM A HERETIC. I am a proud heretic, and this applies not only to religion, but to many other topics. I am an independent thinker, who evaluates every issue critically. This is true in regards to faith/religion, politics, science, history, philosophy, sports,law, and many other topics which I will address in this blog. So if you are looking for the 'consensus' or 'expert' or 'partisan' or 'objective' view on an issue, you have come to the wrong place. However, if you are open-minded and wish to read some interesting independent insights into various issues which I am knowledgeable or opinionated about, then this is the place for you.

Welcome, and good luck to all of us as we continue on this journey, striving for truth.

First Post

I am a thinking person and a writer as well, so I guess it was inevitable that I would eventually start my own blog.
I have shared my thoughts, views, beliefs and insights on many different online venues and forums, but its time for me to try this blogging thing.
I am sure the name I chose will be quite perplexing for many, but I was very intentional with my choice...it will give you something to think about.
I will expound on this title in the near future.

For now, this empty introduction will have to do, as it is time for me to hit the sack.
Let the blogging begin...